Self-Incrimination and the Dispute over the Meaning of “Criminal Case”
| dc.contributor.author | Hills, Blake R. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-10T15:44:53Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-10T15:44:53Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021-05-06 | |
| dc.description | 28 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Consider a scenario in which a suspect is arrested and is interviewed by police officers who fail to give him his Miranda warnings. Charges are subsequently filed, and the interview is introduced against the suspect in a preliminary hearing. The court then binds the case over for trial based largely on incriminatory information in the suspect’s interview. However, the case is eventually dismissed before a trial can take place. The suspect subsequently files suit against the police officers, arguing that they violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that he is entitled to damages for the time he spent incarcerated for the charge that was dismissed. Is the suspect (now plaintiff) correct that his right against self incrimination was violated? Would this right have been violated if charges had never been filed? Would it have made a difference if the interview had been introduced in a jury trial? | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 99 Or. L. Rev. 359 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/26235 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon School of Law | en_US |
| dc.rights | All Rights Reserved. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Criminal law | en_US |
| dc.subject | Fifth Amendment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Trials | en_US |
| dc.subject | Miranda warning | en_US |
| dc.title | Self-Incrimination and the Dispute over the Meaning of “Criminal Case” | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |